General Discussion

ScruffyTheJanitor

(14 posts) Sat Jun 30, 2012, 04:42 PM Jun 2012

In relation to the ACA statute which regulates the IRS...

First thread. Be gentle. lol

With this ruling that the mandate is constitutional and that Congress can impose a tax on those who do not purchase health insurance, do the original rules outlined in the ACA in relation to the IRS still apply since this tax was not initially a "tax?"

Here is the statute:

(g) Administration and procedure.--

(1) In general.--The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

(2) Special rules.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties.--In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) Limitations on liens and levies.--The Secretary shall not--
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

With the current ruling, does the IRS have the ability to selectively enforce this law using the statute I posted? I admit, I'm not well-versed on this subject.

TIA

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In relation to the ACA statute which regulates the IRS... (Original Post) ScruffyTheJanitor Jun 2012 OP

If you receive a refund DearAbby Jun 2012 #1

"The 1%" is misspoken. Igel Jun 2012 #4

How can you blame OBAMACARE DearAbby Jun 2012 #5

I believe the answer is yes, the specific provisions in the bill still apply. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2012 #2

the court ruling didn't change the law at all (with the exception of the medicare expansion) unblock Jun 2012 #3

I don't think the IRS can 'selectively' enforce the law... Wounded Bear Jun 2012 #6

DearAbby

(12,461 posts)

1. If you receive a refund

Reply to ScruffyTheJanitor (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 04:54 PM

Jun 2012

you probably wont be affected by this "fee/Tax" whatever you want to call it.

Less than 1% in Romney's State of Mass. pay the penalty, under RomneyCare. These are people, who can afford a healthcare policy, instead they would rather risk our Tax dollars on their ability to remain healthy and accident free. They are freeloaders.

Again people are voting to relieve the burden on the 1%, instead of thinking of the 99% that would benefit. Just who in the hell are the blood sucking parasites now?

You know this was good for the country....look how loud those supporting the 1% are howling.

Igel

(35,393 posts)

4. "The 1%" is misspoken.

Reply to DearAbby (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:06 PM

Jun 2012

Those likely to pay the fine aren't the top 1% of households, but rather in the middle.

In other words, the 1% aren't the same as the 1% or the 1%, or even the 1%. (Plus it's more like 4%, but that's a smaller mistake.)

We can also overlook that those who "pay the fee" aren't all those affected by the fee. I may not pay traffic fines but I'm surely affected by them as are many others. Just drive and see what happens when drivers see a traffic cop on the side of the road.

But the ACA is more than just the penalty. I'm already affected. Provisions of the ACA rendered my employer's health insurance untenable in a couple of ways. So the employer had to change providers--and with the change went some rather nice perks. The upshot: We pay a fair amount more for health insurance as of 1/1/12 than in 2011.

Who knew that at $45k/year I was a one-percenter! (Gotta run! I think Bill Gates is at the door!)

DearAbby

(12,461 posts)

5. How can you blame OBAMACARE

Reply to Igel (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:19 PM

Jun 2012

for your current rates, shit, why not blame Obamacare for the rise in premiums during the Bush years....you are paying for people who cant afford insurance NOW.

With this plan we will be insuring more people. Those who will be pay the tax, are those who want to risk, staying healthy and avoiding accidents, the freeloaders. If they crap out, end up at an emergency room...do we let him die?...Of course not, we make sure he pays his premium.

Call it a civil lesson in Responsibility.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

2. I believe the answer is yes, the specific provisions in the bill still apply. n/t

Reply to ScruffyTheJanitor (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 04:55 PM

Jun 2012

unblock

(52,519 posts)

3. the court ruling didn't change the law at all (with the exception of the medicare expansion)

Reply to ScruffyTheJanitor (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 05:02 PM

Jun 2012

nothing relating to the penalty/tax/mandate changed at all.

what the court said was that it doesn't matter what they call it, it's a tax.

they could have called it a fee, a revenue enhancement, a treasury contribution, a fine, a duty, a flibberdedoo, it doesn't matter. the name is not important, what it IS is a tax because that's what it is when the government collects money from the people.

so the specifics of the law haven't changed in this regard.

Wounded Bear

(58,799 posts)

6. I don't think the IRS can 'selectively' enforce the law...

Reply to ScruffyTheJanitor (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:25 PM

Jun 2012

what they can do is withhold a taxpayer's refund, should he get one and he fits the bill as a person who can afford insurance but doesn't pay it.

They waive any of the stronger enforcement actions the IRS can do in the case of non-payment of taxes, but the IRS never forgets. Should one 'qualify' for the penalty, it can be enforced in future years from future refunds, much like any money owed to the government.

Reply to this discussion